I guess the accuracy of the statement depends on what the meaning of "be" is.

How could reporters possibly know the level of hostility people in court cases feel toward the judge? There are plenty of reasons to be hostile toward the judge in your case. This person holds government power directly over you. He or she orders you around, constrains your speech, and may take your money or your liberty or deny you a remedy for your injuries — all for reasons that will be presented as punctiliously neutral and rational while you're deprived of the knowledge of what's really going on inside their head.

But maybe what the NYT means by "be hostile" is not feel hostile, but express hostility. Yes, of course, most litigants don't express hostility toward the judge in any way that the judge is likely to hear. Behaving strategically, you wouldn't normally choose to let the judge know you don't like him. And that's one more reason to be afraid of judges: They don't hear honest opinion about what people think of them. They're treated with extreme, even servile respect by most of the people around them.

This convention — borne of fear and need — makes deviation from the norm all the more striking.

That's Donald Trump. Saying things you feel but don't dare say. Oh, no, not you, specifically, but those other people out there in the hinterlands. They must be people who are unlike most people... because if most people feel that Donald Trump is saying what they think but are afraid to say, then, in a democracy, Donald Trump would win.

Most people don't say they're hostile toward the judge in their case, and most people don't say Donald Trump expresses what they only think and don't say. But Donald Trump is winning....

By the way, I love this line from the NYT article: "He does this despite his close ties to a federal judge, Maryanne Trump Barry, his sister." Wow! That's what you call the Butterfield Fallacy (presenting a cause-and-effect relationship as a paradox). If your sister were a long-time federal judge, you'd be less intimidated by judges, less respectful, more likely to see judges as real people and not neutral dispensers of law, more likely to take it personally, to get angry, and to express your antagonism.

"How could reporters possibly know the level of hostility people in court cases feel toward the judge? There are plenty of reasons to be hostile toward the judge in your case." Faux wonderment, right? I mean, you are not assuming, are you, that NYT reporters need to know anything about anything, and in particular, that they need to know anything to portray a GOP figure as stupid, evil, or deviant? For the right kind of smear, any speculation will do. Of course, as smears go, this one is pretty lame -- as you rightly show.

Yes, outside of Trump, I've NEVER heard of any request to recuse a judge.

Wait, why is recuse a word since people, BESIDES Trump, have no issues with judges in their cases? You'd think they wouldn't have a word for so rare a phenomenon.

Nobody can explain why we needed Sotomayor on the SCOTUS because her being a "wise Latina" would impact her verdicts...but it is racist for Trump to claim that another Latino judge's race would impact his verdicts.

It being such a public claim of bias may in fact make it strategically effective. This judge now is being watched by the whole nation who are all waiting to see if he will be biased. If he was so inclined before, I think he will not take that risk, and may even now be biased in Trump's direction out of self-preservation. The other side of it is exactly what Trump is criticizing. The judge's personal relationships with people like La Raza is gonna be hard to face if he favors Trump, but he had that before. Now Trump has at least created a competing fear in the judge. It would normally be a dumb move for Trump, but with the high profile, it's a good gamble. I don't think he thought it through like that. He just did what he does, he started swinging as soon as he stepped in the ring.

"It being such a public claim of bias may in fact make it strategically effective."

He hasn't even filed for the judge's recusal. There's only one reason he would try to trash the judge, and that's because his lawyers told him they have a very good chance of losing this case and he's trying to go public with yet another whining excuse.

Somebody forgot to tell Paul Ryan what an amazing folk hero Donald is. Donald speaks the truth we are all thinking. And yet Paul Ryan described Donald as the textbook example of racism. But it's ok, Donald is winning!

If there's fault to be laid at Trump's feet in all this, it would be his apparent inability to just let things go even when it would behoove him to do so. If Trump feels someone has wronged him in a significant public way, he just can't let it pass without a response. And usually his response is nasty, personal, and derogatory. It's who he is.

It's worked very well for him so far though, so he hasn't had a reason to temper this behavior. We'll see if it continues to either benefit or have no negative effect on him.

You're right, the last paragraph is a textbook example of the Butterfield Effect. I grew up with a federal judge, several police officers, and a priest in the family. Needless to say, I've never been particularly impressed with authority. Not to say I can't summon the level of outward respect required, but as my Mom drummed into us, no one is "better" than I am, and I'm not "better" than anyone else.

"The answer, of course, is that once it started, the ethnic cleansing of the court system could be made to apply to any unpopular group at any time."

This is reflexively trotted out as a glib critique of Trump's complaints, but what it really does is neatly frame the inherent conflict and ultimate showdown between identity politics and the rule of law: allegiance to tribe or allegiance to tribe-dismissing-and-replacing universal law? "Wise Latina" as a feature or as a self-indicting racist (because racist now means anything) bug?

The NY (deputy) attorney general was on the box the other day gleefully talking about Trump's fraud case in NY (there are 3 simultaneous fraud cases against Trump University). You could tell that the attorney general's office were pretty confident of nailing Trump. These cases have been ongoing for a number of years.

As a previous comment said, Trump has not filed for the judge's recusal and he has had month's to do it because he know's he is going to lose. Worse, all case documents about his finances will become public too.

If Trump becomes President and then loses one, two or all three fraud cases then there sure will be lots of fireworks.

Every dumb statement by Trump allows outfits like CNN to hit him with negative coverage on a nearly 24/7 basis. This constant barrage also allows Hillary to slither along, with all her snakeskin baggage, under the radar. It's a coordinated effort by the DNC/MSM to take him down. And Trump keeps making it as easy for them as possible.

"U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by Donald Trump as a “hater” appointed by President Obama who should be recused from the case, listed his membership in the “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” on a judicial questionnaire he filled out when he was selected to be a federal judge. He was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for the organization’s 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.

WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm’s founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits."

Trump's fight is similar to King John after signing Magna Charta incurring terrible punishments from The Pope for his disobedience to Rome by his allowing Baron's rights and the protection of law. Hence Juries.

All Clerics and Emissaries from abroad can announce Bans and interdictions, but they cannot enforce them by corrupt Judges. Thus saith The Donald.

Having been a plaintiff and counter-defendant (still ongoing) where the federal district judge ruled that the other side's fraud and perjury notwithstanding (mentioned in the motion for summary judgment) he had reason to find for the other side (even though the claim was predicated on the fraud and perjury) and that the ruling was upheld by the appellate court I have no reason to doubt Trump's assessment of this federal judge quite believable. After all being a member of a bar group called La Raza and allowing a case going forward without prime plaintiff in the matter going forward doesn't enhance the judge's stature or that of the courts. Too bad Trump can't bring an action against the lawyers who are representing the plaintiff for baseless and malicious prosecution. That discovery would be awesome.

This guy:"William "Bill" Shannon Lerach (born March 14, 1946, Ohio River Valley,[1] Midwestern United States) is a disbarred lawyer who specialized in private securities class action lawsuits. The $7.12 billion he obtained as the lead plaintiff's attorney in the case against Enron is currently the largest sum ever recovered in a group of securities class-action lawsuits in U.S. history.[2] In 2007 he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. In 2009 he was disbarred from practicing law in California."

Unknown said...The NY (deputy) attorney general was on the box the other day gleefully talking about Trump's fraud case in NY (there are 3 simultaneous fraud cases against Trump University). You could tell that the attorney general's office were pretty confident of nailing Trump. These cases have been ongoing for a number of years.

As a previous comment said, Trump has not filed for the judge's recusal and he has had month's to do it because he know's he is going to lose. Worse, all case documents about his finances will become public too.

If Trump becomes President and then loses one, two or all three fraud cases then there sure will be lots of fireworks.

6/7/16, 10:02 AM"

Thats nothing compared to the felonious traitor Hillary Clinton. In the meantime why doesn't the NY deputy AG do something useful and get around to going after the criminal governor of New York? Or the criminal mayor of NYC?

"Somebody forgot to tell Paul Ryan what an amazing folk hero Donald is. Donald speaks the truth we are all thinking."

Yep, I know that's what I'm always thinking--if someone does something I don't like, it must be because of his ethnicity. I guess it's not just the Left that considers race/gender/ethnicity to be controlling in people's lives and identities. Nice to see we have bipartisanship on this ugly issue.

If the soil of Indiana magically makes a man of Mexican heritage not Mexican, by which we mean what any reasonable man throughout history would take it to mean - his ethnic and tribal loyalties... then why did the soil of Panama confer no such benefits to John McCain? Surely there should have been something celebrating our first Hispanic presidential nominee?

In fact, it's funny how many white people can be born overseas and still not get credit for it. George Orwell, Indian novelist. Though Alexander Hamilton is slowly getting some accolades, a few centuries later.

La Raza is an invader-supremacist movement that will, in the fullness of time, be dealt with accordingly.

I do have some qualms about "Trump University" -- paying thousands of dollars for a weekend real estate seminar isn't my cup of tea.

But these are shakedown lawsuits (lawfare = warfare by lawyers) by various leftist enemies of Trump, probably subsidized by La Raza, with a judge who is sympathetic to La Raza. They are trying to rig the game.

While Trump is inartful, he is mostly correct with his criticism of this "rigged game." Because he has lots of dough, though, he can fight it. And, even if he loses, he can tie it up in appeals for 2-3 more years. And, even if he loses the appeal, he can afford to settle out of court with confidentiality. I think Trump survives it.

Is he working the refs, and, if so, who does he consider the refs--the judge or the electorate? There's a good chance he's just talking off the top of his head. I don't think there's some deep Machiavellian scheme behind everything he says unless, of course, there's some deep Machiavellian scheme to hide behind a faux naïf exterior........Does he have a legitimate gripe with the judge? I don't know. I do know that he has a legitimate gripe with the media. The way they luxuriate in their hatred of Trump's "racism" makes Trump look more oppressed than oppressor.

"Is he working the refs, and, if so, who does he consider the refs--the judge or the electorate?"

To the extent he planned this at all, it's working the electorate so that if the case goes against him he can say it was rigged all along. Also, it gives him cover if he does settle the case--he can say "I was forced into it because the judge had it in for me."

But it's also likely he didn't think about this at all, and just went into reflexive "attack mode". It's hard to see this helping him, as anyone taking his side on this is already in the bag. And at the very least it takes him off message at a time when he needs to unify his coalition and pummel Hillary.

The journalistas have agreed to get together and constantly attack Trump - while disregarding Hillary's extremely serious problems which have endangered this country's security. They've agreed publicaly to be unbalanced so you can't find out truth from them. So why listen to them?

Fraud? what was Whitewater? Never heard of it? Of course not.Fraud? How did Hillary make money in futures trading? Never heard of it? Of course you haven't.Fraud? What is going on with Clinton Foundation filings? You don't know? Of course not.You think Donald Trump is awful? Of course, you do. And you also think you are informed. You probably think that state workers in Illinois, New York and California will collect their pensions, too.Fraud? Keep looking at Trump, that's what the masters want you to do.

"He or she orders you around, constrains your speech, and may take your money or your liberty or deny you a remedy for your injuries"

This is why I can't stand watching shows like "Judge Judy". She's a damn bully, scolding and belittling people who are not free to reply. Now if Trump were on the show, and gave it right back to her... *that* would be worth watching.

If Trump would have asked for a recusal before the story of the judge and his connections came out, it would have been quietly denied.

A couple of weeks ago, a number of Trump U graduates who had become successful came forward. That alone should have caused the lawsuit to be dismissed. Most of its competitors can't produce a single successful graduate.

Why is Trump hostile to the judge? Because he knows that he's rich and can get away with it and he knows his supporters will bend over backward to justify everything he says and does.

Honestly, I think this has nothing to do with Curiel and everything to do with delegitimizing the lawsuit. Trump knows that his "University" is a political liability. So he's trying to lay the groundwork for saying, "This is all garbage The judge is baised. Trump U was no scam." And he knows that if you repeat a lie often enough (and your mindless supporters repeat it) it will become accepted as truth. So everyone debating rules of recusal and La Raza and all that are playing his game, debating technical details and ignoring his larger goal.

In that sense, Curiel is just collateral damage for Trump's ambition, just one more person whose life he can crush on his way to the White House.

Trump has some of the best attorney's and lawyers in the country working on his behalf. If they thought filing for recusal would have worked they would have done it. All this stuff about raza is conspiracy nonsense because Trump's legal team would have known about it. If they thought filing a recusal on the basis of raza would work they would have done it. Trump is not an ordinary Joe, he is a billionaire who has filed nearly 600 lawsuits himself.

This person holds government power directly over you. He or she orders you around, constrains your speech, and may take your money or your liberty or deny you a remedy for your injuries — all for reasons that will be presented as punctiliously neutral and rational

7 years later, Althouse discovers it's possible to complain such a person is biased even if the complainer is not racist.

Brando said..."Is he working the refs, and, if so, who does he consider the refs--the judge or the electorate?"

To the extent he planned this at all, it's working the electorate so that if the case goes against him he can say it was rigged all along. Also, it gives him cover if he does settle the case--he can say "I was forced into it because the judge had it in for me.

It could also be the equivalent of a brushback pitch in baseball, telling the judge that if he doesn't play fair, Trump will publicly call him on it. As I've long suspected that a lot of judges are little more than failed lawyers with sufficient political connections to get appointed or elected to the bench, I don't see them as being better than anyone else.

Last thought on the good Hispanics living in enclaves. They do well and are friendly as most first generation immigrant workers do, but their American born young folks have more ambition and want to rule more things and get more wealth. That rule will come with more LaRaza Hispanic voters. More voters will come from more illegal immigration that morphs its way into citizenship through either an instant Amnesty or over another generation unless Trump deports them.

If you watched Rubio, you watched that Hispanic dominance plan in action.

The State establishment of [class] diversity policies, as well as special and peculiar civil rights businesses, and our own president of a color, has granted sanction to question their ulterior motives based on their [class] diversity-inspired perspective.

That said, if this lawsuit is successful, I wonder if there will be a class action lawsuit against all underperforming and debt-laden public universities, colleges, and grade schools. That would calm popular apprehension that Democrats have resumed institutional [class] diversity for profit.

The judge unsealed previously sealed documents, in order to damage Trump. Has everyone forgotten what started this in the first place? As to "suckers' who wasted money, happens all the time. Nigerian princes still collecting money. At least with Trump University, some "students" apparently learned enough to profit by the experience.

In any educational experience, there will be winners and losers. I am sure Trump U's plan was buy low, sell high, learn the market, do the math. People who followed the advice came out ahead. Anyone stupid enough to keep spending for more "magic" tricks has no reason to complain.

I agree with most comments here. This is not a big deal at all. I like both the "get out in front of likely biased decision against" and "work the ref" angles. I also agree "Trump U" type real estate seminars are sleazy (mostly in knowingly casting a wide net and getting some people who have no chance of benefiting - same as our general higher ed bubble).

Obviously there's no case for recusal. The judge was hearing this case long before Trump started talking about building the wall and how we were getting not only good people via Mexico but also many awful ones. Therefore recusal on that basis is impossible. Explained here (with a side of snark).

If your sister is a judge, you are more likely to put yourself in her shoes and treat judges as you would want her to be treated.

Almost all Republicans don't approve of what he said. Just more ammunition for the Clinton campaign. He already has the votes of his supporters and this seems like an odd way to reach out those on the fence.

If he thinks the judge is being unfair he should lay out specifically what he did that was unfair so that we can judge for our-self. But he doesn't do that, and simply jumps to a discussion of why he is unfair. First need the what, then the why.

At least AA refrained from using one of these recently invented pronouns, but the use of "their" when the reference is to one person is still irritating. If AA took that much time to consider the style, perhaps she could as readily have rephrased the entire sentence.

Speaking of style - and this is not off topic - Donald Trump's continue to baffle me as far as making sense of what he says on camera. Perhaps he really is of Irish extraction? It is probably racist of me to say that.

I once worked for a contractor who was 3d generation Irish-American. He was the best boss I ever had, but John would call me into his office and talk at me for 10-15 minutes. I would then go to our fearless vice-president and say, "Bruce, John just told me the following" and repeat what I had been told as best I could. Bruce would listen and then say, "OK, here is what he wants you to do" and tell me in words I could understand, or "We will just see about that! Hagar, you go to your office and I will see you later." Then he would go into John's office and close the door, and they would go at it, hammer and thongs for half an hour or more. Then Bruce would come come out, come to me and grudgingly tell me what to do, meaning he had lost the argument, or to just forget what John had said, meaning he had won.This was a game that the two of them played and had to do with on whose turf the contest was held, I think.

Anyway, I think Trump also does this kind of thing and talks his way on purpose. It does not mean that he is "taking a position," or "stating his future policy," or whatever.F. ex., I think he is quite aware 2/3 of our southern border follows the centerline of the Rio Grande and that neither he nor anyone else is going to build wall there.

Talking this way also caused our firm some trouble at times because some people thought John had said things that he had not said - or not exactly, anyway.

John had a very firm policy that we were never, ever to lie on company time, but on the other hand there was no necessity for telling outsiders everything we knew, or thought we knew, and we got pretty good at not saying anything, though some people might have thought we had. Their problem, not ours.

My experience, having prosecuted hundreds of criminal cases, was that judges routinely ran roughshod over the law to provide criminal defendants with protection to which they were not legally entitled, to deny victims the protection and respect to which they were legally and ethically entitled and topped it off by bitching about having to impose mandatory prison time.

I am quite comfortable asserting that the vast majority of victims in those cases walked away feeling hostile toward the judge despite being satisfied with the outcome.

Their feelings were validated when the Chief Justice of our State Supreme Court campaigned actively against the Victims' Rights Initiative.

Like Curiel, he was offended when I suggested that his political activity would require his recusal when called upon to rule on the matter. Unlike Curiel he did recuse himself. Not quite analogous, but close enough.

There definitely is an American culture. Sometimes it can be quite rough, but enterprising people from around the world still seem to think that America is the most promising place to be, if they can just get here.

I think the Constitution shaped this nation as much as the environment, and it is well worth defending as written and amended by due process.

The NY (deputy) attorney general was on the box the other day gleefully talking about Trump's fraud case in NY (there are 3 simultaneous fraud cases against Trump University).

First Rule of Trump Fight Club; Always counterpunch. Do not let a preening political operative in a position of power(Eric Schneiderman) and wanting to make a name for himself get on national TV and publicly trash your civil case without mounting a countering public defense. Allowing the MSM/Democrats to dictate the narrative NEVER works, as many a GOP POTUS nominee has found.

There’s a difference between remarks that are “racial” and those that are “racist.” A racial remark is a remark that contains elements of “or relating to the social construct of race.” For example, the remark that, “I believe racial diversity to be a positive concept for society,” is a racial remark.

A racist remark is a remark that contains elements of the idea that “a particular racial group is inferior,” An example would be, “Black people are not dependable.”

These days ethnic remarks are treated as racial.

Trump’s remarks are racial but they are not racist. Accusations of racism are the standard game plan for the MSM/Democrats against any GOP nominee for POTUS. In Trump’s case there’s been so many false claims of racism against him that I think he may have acquired some kind of public relations immunity. But the Morning Joes are unanimous; this Judge Curiel kerfuffle is the one that is going to bring the hated Trump DOWN.

Advice to anti-Trumpers: Just as after a mass shooting it’s best not to draw conclusions too soon the same could be said about Trump controversies. Wait 2 or 3 days before joining the MSM/Democrat ritual firing squads shooting at Trump. It saves embarrassment later when Trump’s “racist” statements turn out not to be racist.